tilt:But we must keep in mind: Just as "person" is a caused and conditioned construct and a way of talking about experience, ut when they are seen after resolving them by means of knowledge into these elements, they disintegrate like froth subjected to compression by the hand. They are mere states (dhamma) occurring due to conditions and void.

sorry could you clarify, is this a quote from the texts. if it is do you have the reference .

When the mind/body is seen with vipassana the misapprehensions of solidity, etc that makes up what we imagine is the person to be “disintegrate like froth subjected to compression by the hand,” leaving us with clear comprehension of our experiences as conditionality and emptiness.

I had a quick look but I cant find this in the Vism.[b]".as "person" is a caused and conditioned construct""?

robertk wrote:a mirage is not real, nor is a person, a human being or a unicorn.

A mirage is something that can be experienced, arising from causes and conditions, as with a person or a human being. .

How does one experience a human being?there is seeing that experiences various colors, or hearing that experiences sounds, tasting that experiences tastes, etc.and thinking that thinks about these and may label it human. But where is human being other than as a concept.

robertk wrote:a mirage is not real, nor is a person, a human being or a unicorn.

A mirage is something that can be experienced, arising from causes and conditions, as with a person or a human being. .

How does one experience a human being?there is seeing that experiences various colors, or hearing that experiences sounds, tasting that experiences tastes, etc.and thinking that thinks about these and may label it human. But where is human being other than as a concept.

You don't answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

the point of that quote from the visuddhimagga is to state that ideas like people or human being are only concepts with no reality at all, whereas nama and rupa ( the khandhas) are real (albeit evanescent , conditioned and uncontrollable).so to equate person with the khandhas is a misunderstanding of what the teaching on khandhas and anatta is about.

Hi RobertkI agree and understand what you say above.

What I can’t understand is why do say some thing ever changing and inconstant a real.Do you say a brick or a water bubble is real?Do you say that the present moment awareness is real?

robertk wrote:a mirage is not real, nor is a person, a human being or a unicorn.

A mirage is something that can be experienced, arising from causes and conditions, as with a person or a human being. .

How does one experience a human being?there is seeing that experiences various colors, or hearing that experiences sounds, tasting that experiences tastes, etc.and thinking that thinks about these and may label it human. But where is human being other than as a concept.

You have yet to explain what is mean by "real." It is a word tossed off with no meaning attached to it, it would seem.

Interestingly, "color," "hearing," "tasting" are conceptual structures used to talk about various aspects of the flow of experience. "Human being," "person," "self" are various conceptual ways of talking about experience.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

You have yet to explain what is mean by "real." It is a word tossed off with no meaning attached to it, it would seem.

Interestingly, "color," "hearing," "tasting" are conceptual structures used to talk about various aspects of the flow of experience. "Human being," "person," "self" are various conceptual ways of talking about experience.

hearing, color, taste, are all paramattha dhammas. When we talk about them of course they are concepts, but when they arise they are absolutely real.

the point of that quote from the visuddhimagga is to state that ideas like people or human being are only concepts with no reality at all, whereas nama and rupa ( the khandhas) are real (albeit evanescent , conditioned and uncontrollable).so to equate person with the khandhas is a misunderstanding of what the teaching on khandhas and anatta is about.

Hi RobertkI agree and understand what you say above.

What I can’t understand is why do say some thing ever changing and inconstant a real.Do you say a brick or a water bubble is real?Do you say that the present moment awareness is real?

Why would I say a brick or water bubble is real? What is present moment awareness in your view?

I don't think I said something is ever changing did I?

So to sum up> Only realties like the elements, feelings, mindstates arise and pass away. They have the nature of aniccum, dukkham, anatta. Concepts like human being, Robert Sarah, tilt, can last for days , weeks or months because they are merely ideas used to designate.

Concepts are certainly unreal. People doubt this but they can prove it to themself if there is direct insight. That is what the development of satipatthana reveals - that it is only ignorance that takes concepts for realities. As the Abhidhammathasangaha says about concepts like human, person, man, chariot that

"

All such different things , though they do not exist in the ultimate sense , become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of ultimate things [paramattha dhammas]"(

bodhi p.326)

Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas (nama) all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. Let us consider a couple of [examples of] thinking.

1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real.

2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real.

3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept.

Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by.

Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects.

Now there is thinking happening that is trying to comprehend what was just read. The process of thinking is real and it might be rooted in lobha (desire) that wants to understand. The lobha is real - is it seen as just a dhamma , not you. There is also feeling; if you liked what was written this will be pleasant feeling - is it seen as just a conditioned dhamma, not you. And if you didn't like it there was unpleasant feeling, (not your feeling). These present objects must be seen wisely otherwise there will always be doubt and one will not gain confidence. Or one will settle for attachment to the Dhamma rather than insight. Or worse become someone whose aim is to look for little flaws thinking that this is proper investigation.

As This thread has made clear, according to Theravada the Khandhas are real (but evanescent, they simply arise and instantly cease).

SN 22.94 reads, in part: “Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.... [agree that form that is permanent, etc, does not exist ...]... “And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists....[BB comments: "The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being."

What is not real are concepts like human, self. Thus it is by understanding khandhas that the illusion of self, of being is broken down.It is why the Buddha is called Mahavibhajavadin, the great analyst.

You have yet to explain what is mean by "real." It is a word tossed off with no meaning attached to it, it would seem.

Interestingly, "color," "hearing," "tasting" are conceptual structures used to talk about various aspects of the flow of experience. "Human being," "person," "self" are various conceptual ways of talking about experience.

hearing color taste are all paramattha dhammas. When we talk about them of course they are concepts, but when they arise they are absolutely real.

Color, taste and such are aspects of the flow of experiences. That we characterize these experiences as color, taste and such is part of our learned conditioning. What is of interest is that these experiences share the same “nature” as any other caused and conditioned thing.

I still haven't been able to find this in the Vism. TILT:

".as "person" is a caused and conditioned construct""

Keep looking.

when they arise they are absolutely real.

And that means what, exactly?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

robertk wrote:In the opening post of this thread I cited a member who wrote that

there were never any aggregates either.

And you took the quote out of context.

As This thread has made clear, according to Theravada the Khandhas are real (but evanescent, they simply arise and instantly cease).

“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists....[BB comments: "The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being."

What is not real are concepts like human, self. Thus it is by understanding khandhas that the illusion of self, of being is broken down.It is why the Buddha is called Mahavibhajavadin, the great analyst.

But what is actually meant by "exists?" You cannot meaningfully use a word such as "exists" without being able to clearly state what is meant by it, which you have yet to do.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

robertk wrote:“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists....[BB comments: "The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being."

What is not real are concepts like human, self. Thus it is by understanding khandhas that the illusion of self, of being is broken down.It is why the Buddha is called Mahavibhajavadin, the great analyst.[/quote]What is also interesting is that the experiences that make up the khandhas can be -- and are -- talked about very differently in the suttas, which really opens up the question of what "exists" means.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

I will explain more about concepts in order to clarifyPannati, concepts, can be classified in many ways . So things like a unicorn can be considered as different types of pannati from trees.

Trees, computers, humans, Robert, Tilt, sarah, are the shadows of what is really there - and what is really there are only namas and rupas, mentality and matter, the aggregates: insignificant dhammas that pass away instantly.

These concepts- human, Robert, are more deluding than concepts like unicorns (which we know have no reality).

Because of accumulated avijja, ignorance, these type of concepts (pannatti) delude and instead of being given their correct status - as necessary designations* - they are assumed to be actual. And that is where all problems begin and end.

*[i]Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic labels. What is called a thought in conventional language is comprised of billions of momentary arisings which repeatedly take a concept as object and may include mentally naming it. Because of this repetition - and the lack of insight into the actual dhammas - the illusion of permanence is solidified[/i].

The commentary to the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield from PTS) (p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter)

"

it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist [i.e. men, women] and since it does not dart among those things that do exist [i.e. it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas].

------What we call a thought in conventional language is a long and complex series of different processes. This is explained in detail in the commentaries.

____ As I said above the conceptualising happens long before any naming has time to occur. Even babies and animals who have no linguistic abilities are fully involved in processes of conceptualising. However, animals and babies cannot yet expand concepts into the religions, sciences, and general craziness and wonder that is the fruit of civilisation. I think it can only be known by direct insight whether this is true or not and that is why the Buddha's teaching is ehipassiko - come and see. Which is why I believe vipassana is not a matter of doing something to get something ; instead it is simply the developing of insight into what is real and what is not. All these processes, the realities and the concepts are happening every moment of the day. They do not have to be searched for - they only need to be seen.